In addition to original Darwinism, today there are two other versions of evolutionary theory: punctuated equilibrium and neo-Darwinism, a revamped version of the original Darwinism. No matter the variant though, evolution serves as the creation myth for the theological and philosophical worldview of Evolutionary Humanism (Naturalism).

Evolution is a religion, declared evolutionary Humanist Michael Ruse. This was true of evolution in the beginning and it is true still today One of the most popular books of the era was Religion Without Revelation, by Julian Huxley, grandson of Thomas Huxley As always evolution was doing everything expected of religion and more. (National Post, Canadian Edition, 5/13/2000)

Humanism is a philosophical, religious, and moral point of view. (Humanist Manifestos I & II, 1980, Introduction, Paul Kurtz)

The primary denominations of Evolutionary Humanism are Cultural Marxism/Communism, Secular Humanism, Postmodernism, and Spiritual Communism. The offshoots of these are among others, New Age/green environmentalism/Gaia, socialism, progressivism, liberalism, multiculturalism, and atheism. Individually and collectively, these are modernized versions of pre-Biblical naturalism (paganism).

All worldviews begin with a religious declaration. The Biblical worldview begins with, In the beginning God  Cosmic Humanism begins, In the beginning Divine Matter. Communism, Postmodernism, and Secular Humanism begin with, In the beginning Matter. Matter is all there is, and it not only thinks, but is Divine:

In explicitly religious language, the following religionists offer all praise, honor, and glory to their Creator:

We may regard the material and cosmic world as the supreme being, as the cause of all causes, as the creator of heaven and earth. (Vladimir Lenin quoted in Communism versus Creation, Francis Nigel Lee, 1969, p. 28)

The Cosmos is all that is or ever will be. (Carl Sagan, Cosmos, 1980, p. 4)

Evolutionary Humanism has demonstrated itself to be an extremely dangerous worldview. In just the first eighty-seven years of the twentieth century, the evolutionist project of radically transforming the world and mankind through the power of evolutionism has led to the extermination of between 100-170 million subhuman men, women, and children.

Deadly Problems

First, in order that materialist ethics be consistent with the idea that life evolved by chance and continues to evolve over time, ethics must be built on human social instincts that are in a continuous process of change over evolutionary time. This view demolishes both moral ethics and social taboos, thereby liberating man to do as he pleases. Over time this results in a lawless climate haunted by bullies, predators, despots, psychopaths, and other unsavory elements.

Perhaps Darwin could not envision the evil unleashed by his ideas. Nonetheless, he did have some inkling, for he wrote in his Autobiography that one who rejects God,

 can have for his rule of life those impulses and instincts which are strongest or seem to him the best ones. (Fatal Fruit, Tom DeRosa, p.7)

 if there were a morality written up in the sky somewhere but no God to enforce it, I see no reason why we should obey it. Human beings may, and do, make up their own rules. (Understanding the Times, David Noebel, p. 138-139)

Jeffrey Dahmer, a psychopath who cannibalized his victims, acted on Darwins advice. In an interview he said,

If a person doesnt think there is a God to be accountable to, then what is the point of trying to modify your behavior to keep it within acceptable ranges? Thats how I thought I always believed the theory of evolution as truth, that we all just came from the slime. (Dahmer in an interview with Stone Phillips, Dateline NBC, 11/29/1994)

Blind to good and evil, reckless of destruction, omnipotent matter rolls on its relentless way. (Russell, Why I am not a Christian and Other Essays on Religion and Related Subjects, 1957, p. 115)

Next, materialist epistemology and metaphysics dispossesses man of soul, free will, conscience, mind, and reason, thereby dehumanizing (animalizing) man and totally destroying not only the worth, dignity, and meaning of human life, but the possibility of freedom. The essence of this annihilation is captured in the following quotes:

Man is but fish made over  declared biologist William Etkin (Pushing the Antithesis, Greg L. Bahnsen, p. 224). And his life is but a partial, continuous, progressive, multiform and continually interactive, self-realization of the potentialities of atomic electron states, explained J.D. Bernal (1901-1971), past Professor of Physics at the University of London (The Origin of Life, Bernal, 1967, xv). Furthermore, The universe cares nothing for us, trumpets William Provine, Cornell University Professor of Biology, and we have no ultimate meaning in life. (Scientists, Face It! Science and Religion are Incompatible, The Scientist, Sept. 1988)

Man... must be degraded from a spiritual being to an animalistic pattern. He must think of himself as an animal, capable of only animalistic reactions. He must no longer think of himself as capable of spiritual endurance, or nobility. By animalizing man his state of mind can be ordered and enslaved. (Russian Textbook on Psychopolitics, Degradation and Shock, Chapter viii)

Finally, Evolutionary Humanism posits the notion that despite the fact that man is but fish made over  there are in fact, some exceptions to this rule. For it happens---by chance of course---that some lucky species and races of the human animal are more highly evolved (superior) and therefore enlightened than the others, who are---unluckily for them---less evolved and as a consequence, subhuman. Paired to this view is the idea that if a species or race does not continue to evolve (progress up the evolutionary ladder), it will become extinct. Together, these ideas lead logically to the deadly conclusion that in order to preserve the fittest of the species---or the spiritually evolved, as is the case with Spiritual Communism--- it is morally incumbent upon the superior to replace (via the science of eugenics and population control) and/or liquidate the subhumans. In his book, The Descent of Man and Selection in Relation to Sex, (1871) Charles Darwin foresaw this eventuality:

At some future period the civilized races of man will almost certainly exterminate, and replace, the savage races throughout the world the anthropomorphous apes will no doubt be exterminated. (Descent, 2nd ed., p. 183)

In practice, the materialist worldview is a hellish recipe for catastrophe, as was amply demonstrated by the 20th centurys two most blood-soaked political movements--- pagan Nazism and atheist Communism. Both rejected God, and both were animated by Darwinism

Nazi Germany

Hitlers murderous philosophy was built on Darwinian evolution and preservation of favored species. In his book, Evolution and Ethics, British evolutionist Sir Arthur Keith notes,

The leader of Germany is an evolutionist not only in theory, but, as millions know to their cost, in the rigor of its practice. (1947, p.230)

It was Darwinism that inspired Hitler to try to create---by way of eugenics--- a superior race, the Aryan Man. In pursuit of his ambition, Hitler eliminated what he considered were inferior human animals, among which were for example, Jews, Slavs, Gypsies, and Christians.

Evolutionism in Nazi Germany resulted in gas chambers, ovens, and the liquidation of eleven million useless eaters and other undesirables. Evolutionist Niles Eldridge, author of Darwin: Discovering the Tree of Life, reluctantly concurs. Darwins theory, he acknowledges,

has given us the eugenics movement and some of its darker outgrowths, such as the genocidal practices of the Nazis. (2005, p. 13)

The Soviet Union

Even though Karl Marx wrote his Communist Manifesto before Darwin published his On the Species, the roots of Communism are nonetheless found in Darwinism. Karl Marx wrote Fredrich Engels that Darwins Origin,

is the book which contains the basis in natural science for our view. (Marxian Biology and the Social Scene, Conway Zirkle, 1959)

Stephane Courtois, one of the authors of The Black Book of Communism, relates that,

In Communism there exists a sociopolitical eugenics, a form of Social Darwinism. (p. 752)

Vladimir Lenin exulted that,

Darwin put an end to the belief that the animal and vegetable species bear no relation to one another (and) that they were created by God, and hence immutable. (Fatal Fruit, Tom DeRosa, p. 9)

Lenin exercised godlike power over life and death. He saw himself as, the master of the knowledge of the evolution of social species. It was Lenin who decided who should disappear by virtue of having been condemned to the dustbin of history. From the moment Lenin made the scientific decision that the bourgeoisie represented a stage of humanity that evolution had surpassed, its liquidation as a class and the liquidation of the individuals who actually or supposedly belonged to it could be justified. (The Black Book of Communism, p. 752)

Alain Brossat draws the following conclusions about the Soviet Union and Nazi Germany, and the ties that bind them:

The liquidation of the Muscovite executioners, a close relative of the treatment carried out by Nazi assassins, is a linguistic microcosm of an irreparable mental and cultural catastrophe that was in full view on the Soviet Stage. The value of human life collapsed, and thinking in categories replaced ethical thought In the discourse and practice of the Nazi exterminators, the animalization of Other was closely linked to the ideology of race. It was conceived in the implacably hierarchical racial terms of subhumans and supermen but in Moscow in 1937, what mattered was the total animalization of the Other, so that a policy under which absolutely anything was possible could come into practice. (ibid, p. 751)

21st Century America

Ronald Reagan loved God and America. America he said is, the moral force that defeated communism and all those who would put the human soul into bondage. (Republican National Convention, Houston TX, 8/17/1992)

Even though he was optimistic about Americas future he nevertheless cautioned that America must maintain her reliance on God and her commitment to righteousness and morality. He liked quoting Alexis de Tocquevilles insightful analysis of the source of Americas greatness:

Not until I went into the churches of America and heard her pulpits flame with righteousness did I understand the secret and genius of her power. America is great because she is good, and if America ever ceases to be good, America will cease to be great. (In the Words of Ronald Reagan, by Michael Reagan)

As America moves into the 21st century, we have yet to admit a shameful, dark secret. Evolutionism the creation myth, that empowered Nazism and Communism, is being taught to Americas youth in our government-controlled schools. The animalization of Americans is well advanced and coupled to a corresponding slow collapse of human worth. Already we hear of human life spoken of in dehumanizing categories such as vegetable, non-persons, and uterine content.

America, the moral force that defeated communism is on the verge of completely rejecting God, the natural order, and moral absolutes and instead, embracing the godless religion of evolution, amorality, and the unnatural.

Evolutionary Humanism is the most dangerous delusion thus far in history. It begins with the animalization of Other, in tandem with the elevation of the superior, for whom this serves as a license to make up their own rules, abuse power, and force their will onto the citizens. This is accompanied by a downward spiraling process that pathologizes the natural order, moral ethics, virtue, and social taboos while simultaneously elevating narcissism, tyranny, cruelty, nihilism, confusion, perversion, sadism, theft, and lying to positions of politically correct new morality, which is then enforced through sensitivity training, speech codes, hate crime laws, and other intimidation tactics. If not stopped, as history warns us, this rapidly escalating downward process leads inevitably to totalitarianism, enslavement, and eventually mass murder.

In a portent of things to come, evolutionist B.F. Skinner said:

A scientific analysis of behavior dispossesses autonomous man and turns the control he has been said to exert over to the environment. The individual is henceforth to be controlled in large part by other men. (Understanding the Times, David Noebel, p. 232)

Copyright Linda Kimball 2007 www.patriotsandliberty.com/

Linda is the author of many published essays on culture, worldview, and politics. Her essays are published both nationally and internationally. She is a member of MoveOff.org

When Communists in the last century took over a country, they “educated” the people. Not in the wonders of socialism or communism, but in EVOLUTION. This was to eliminate the idea that there was a CREATOR, a HIGHER POWER than the government.

Nope, through evolution, those HUMANS who were in power in the government were the only souce of truth to be had, based on their own definitions.

5
posted on 06/20/2007 5:43:59 AM PDT
by MrB
(You can't reason people out of a position that they didn't use reason to get into in the first place)

First: science, like politics is merely a product of culture. In turn, culture is founded on two core presuppositions: 1. the origin of life, 2. the source and/or cause of evil (suffering).

Because Evolution purports to tell us the origins of life, it is not science but cosmology.

Second: microevolution is undisputed. Horticulturalists, animal breeders, etc. have ALWAYS known of this capacity.

Evolution deceptively disguises itself behind microevolution when in reality it’s true purpose is to cause people to believe the entirely fallacious proposition that bacteria can change into fish and fish into proto-apes and so on. This is macro-evolution.

Any sort of a theory whose adherents simply ignore major disproofs over a long period of time is basically a religious doctrine.

The important thing this article does is affirms what I've said before - evolution is a philosophy, NOT a science. Evolution is a worldview and a philosophical lens through which empirical evidences are interpreted. Evolution, itself, is not science. It is not empirically verifiable. It is not repeatable. It relies upon the interpretation of circumstantial evidences which, in and of themselves, would have nothing to do with evolution except that evolutionists have chosen to jam them into the evolutionary framework which they've built.

Evolution deceptively disguises itself behind microevolution when in reality its true purpose is to cause people to believe the entirely fallacious proposition that bacteria can change into fish and fish into proto-apes and so on. This is macro-evolution.

Waiting for evolutionists to invoke an "Evolution in the gaps" argument in 5....4....3....2....1....

Because our understanding of politics has been corrupted, we cannot discuss what threatens our political sovereignty until we free ourselves from the effects of that corruption. It’s as if we are looking at our political life through lenses or panes of glass that obscure and distort everything we see, including the nature of our own actions.

Thus, though the very possibility of electoral politics derives from moral premises that justify and require self-government, we are led to consider our political choices without regard to those moral premises, as if economic and other material consequences are the only proper subjects of political life.

Why do the American people accept this approach, when it so evidently undermines their claim to political sovereignty?

We’ve heard all this before and it’s still a load. A belief in evolution is not inconsistent with a belief in God, nor does it inevitably lead to a belief in humanism, communism, or whatever. The Islamist terrorists that we are fighting today are creationists - does that mean creationism is responsible for their murderous creed?

Then you must be hell on Geology, Astronomy, Physics, and so forth, and so on.

No, just the philosophical approach which misinterprets the empirical evidences obtained from those disciplines. Evolutionism just likes to add it's own spin, and then claim that these interpretations, in and of themselves, are "science". It's all bunkum, it's all circular, and it belies poor thinking abilities on the part of the evolutionists who do it.

I must say that this is indeed the question that I ponder day and night. Not "will the country be destroyed by the 20 million illegal Mexican invaders that Kongress and Jorje Bush want to ram down our throats", not" will Kongress and Jorje Bush advance gun control and finally get rid of that annying second amendment". No. These pale in comparison to the question of evolutionary humanism.

20
posted on 06/20/2007 5:57:28 AM PDT
by from occupied ga
(Your most dangerous enemy is your own government, Benito Guilinni a short man in search of a balcony)

Because Evolution purports to tell us the origins of life, it is not science but cosmology.

Evolution proponents don't have the definitive skinny on the origin of life and they admit that. Evolution proponents (I include myself) know how life progressed from lesser to more complex forms, but the actual origin can only be speculated on. What the creationists due is put their faith in a book that was written by bronze age dwellers of the middle east. Being it is faith it is undesputable to them....so be it. I cant see why there cant be evolution as started by God and as they say "The Lord works in mysterious ways."

Critical thinking and free speech is dangerous to the superstionists of evolution.

Actually, you are absolutely right in this statement. This is why even the merest suggestion that ID/creationism would even be mentioned alongside evolution in the public schools is met with frenzied howls of rage from the evolutionists. It's not that science is "under assault", but rather it is the evolutionists religion which would be challenged. And like the mullahs in a shari'a state, the evolutionists cannot allow the dominance of their theological system to be challenged in any way, shape, or form. Even if it means stifling free inquiry and open criticism.

People can come up with all sorts of justifications for their actions. “Survival of the fitest” was never meant to be a model for human behaviour, it is simply a description of how nature works. You can’t argue that an idea is invalid because some people have chosen to misuse it to justify their actions.

Evolution proponents (I include myself) know how life progressed from lesser to more complex forms

No, you don't. Absent the observation of such, all you have is speculation. And even this is tenuously done, since you have no fossil intermediates which have stood the test of criticism. Even evolutionists bemoan the lack of intermediary structures in the fossil record.

but the actual origin can only be speculated on.

Actually, the speculated origins of life on earth upon which empirical science can actually be brought to bear (i.e. excluding exotic nonsense like panspermia or "aliens brought life to earth from somewhere") are positively excluded by an understanding of simple chemistry. There simply was no abiogenesis of life on any early earth.

What the creationists due is put their faith in a book that was written by bronze age dwellers of the middle east.

You are aware that the evolutionary philosophical system relies upon a cosmogeny which is still basically the same as what people in the Stone Age believed, right?

“First, in order that materialist ethics be consistent with the idea that life evolved by chance and continues to evolve over time, ethics must be built on human social instincts that are in a continuous process of change over evolutionary time. “

And this is bad how? Some people used to burn “witches.” But fortunately that’s sort of “evolved.” The Old Testament contain many strictures that we just ignore now. Thank goodness.

nice spin, pseudo-science at its best. you should be congratulated for you use of hyperbole.

fossil intermediates eh?

yes there are holes in the fossil records. if the whole thing were laid bare with all the possible combinations and evolutionary changes I would then believe in creationism, because it would be a MIRACLE to have find all that stuff and it would have had to be exposed to us all at once by a supreme intellect.

No, you can’t. It has been used as a justification by people who had their own agendas, but I don’t think it can be convincingly argued that communism, for example, developed out of a belief in evolution. I’ll admit that it was the major driver of the eugenics movement, although again that was a misapplication. Note that Darwin’s theory was about “Natural Selection”, and there’s nothing “natural” about what the eugenicists were trying to do. In fact, what they were trying to do was a lot closer to traditional animal husbandry and breeding techniques, concepts which predate the theory of evolution by several thousand years.

Except that there is more science to support evolution than there is, for example, to support Noah's flood.

No, there's not. There's not a shred of actual evidence that would independently support macroevolution, if one didn't approach the matter from a preconceived evolutionary worldview. Evolution is a "spin", not a science.

Saying that there are holes in the fossil record to justify the complete lack of intermediary fossil structures is like arguing that a few welfare pimps are the reason why the whole welfare system is broken.

if the whole thing were laid bare with all the possible combinations and evolutionary changes I would then believe in creationism, because it would be a MIRACLE to have find all that stuff and it would have had to be exposed to us all at once by a supreme intellect.

So, instead you'll put your faith in a pseudo-scientific philosophy like evolution which rests on partial evidence which doesn't even actually support the philosophy?

Well, evolutionism has served as a philosophical enabler for everything from totalitarian Communism to eugenics and Nazism, for one.

Are you making the argument that none of those philosophies would exist without being able to rely on having the ToE to abuse, and that America cannot deal with those philosophies or survive if they exist at all?

48
posted on 06/20/2007 7:08:35 AM PDT
by tacticalogic
("Oh bother!" said Pooh, as he chambered his last round.)

Are you making the argument that none of those philosophies would exist without being able to rely on having the ToE to abuse, and that America cannot deal with those philosophies or survive if they exist at all?

Nope, I think you read far too much into what I said. I *would* say that those philosophies did/do desire our destruction (whether they can or not depends on us), so why should I countenance a philosophy which underlies them and gave them a basis for their existence?

Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.